Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Forty Squares (Pty) Ltd and Others v GL Palmer and Company (2023/110502) [2025] ZAGPJHC 37 (24 January 2025)
The High Court dismissed an exception to delictual claims against an auditor, holding the pleadings were sufficient to proceed to trial.
Al Mayya International Limited (BVI) v DDP Valuers (Pty) Ltd (A166/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 757 (31 July 2024)
Full Court dismissed an appeal against an exception in a delict claim over an allegedly inflated property valuation, holding no pleaded duty, causation, or adequate damages basis.
Meyers N.O. and Others v Nelson Mandela Bay Metropolitan Municipality and Another - Exception (2923/2021) [2023] ZAECQBHC 57 (7 September 2023)
The court held that the plaintiffs' amended particulars of claim contain sufficient factual averments to sustain a cause of action in delict for pure economic loss against the municipality and its building control officer. The trust pleaded detailed facts regarding the municipality's knowledge of existing municipal services, its statutory obligations, and the direct causal link between the officials' omissions and the losses suffered. The court found that the trust's claim is not based merely on innocent errors but on alleged negligent misstatements and omissions in circumstances where the of…
Source excerpt
KPMG Services (Pty Limited) SA v Maguwada and Others (22014/19) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1773 (28 August 2023)
The court held that the plaintiffs' second amended Particulars of Claim do not disclose a cause of action against the defendant. The law is settled that auditors owe their legal duties to the companies they audit, not to the employees or shareholders. The plaintiffs failed to plead facts establishing a special relationship or proximity between themselves and KPMG. The claims for emotional shock and loss of earning capacity were not supported by sufficient material facts or foreseeability. The court found no basis to develop the common law to extend auditor liability to employees. Accordingly,…
Source excerpt
Hatari Game Breeders CC v De Beers Consolidated Mines (Pty) Ltd (1768/2018) [2023] ZANCHC 34 (14 April 2023)
The High Court held that Hatari, as undisclosed principal, bought Lusaka through its agent and that De Beers negligently misrepresented the bull’s sire.
Motsamai v Century Property Development (Pty) Ltd (25457/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 582 (26 July 2022)
The High Court dismissed a defendant’s exception to particulars of claim in a property dispute, finding the objections overly technical and unfounded.
Al Mayya International Limited (BVI) v DPD Valuers (Proprietary) Limited (41424/20) [2021] ZAGPPHC 622 (21 September 2021)
The High Court upheld an exception to a delict claim over an allegedly negligent property valuation, finding no pleaded duty of care, causation, or adequate particulars.
Maguwada and Others v KPMG Services (Pty) Limited SA (22014/2019) [2021] ZAGPPHC 267 (6 May 2021)
The court held that the plaintiffs' claim is for pure economic loss arising from an alleged negligent misstatement by KPMG in the audit of VBS Mutual Bank. South African law does not recognize a general duty of care owed by auditors to employees of the audited company for such losses. The court found that imposing liability on auditors in these circumstances would create indeterminate liability, contrary to public and legal policy. The particulars of claim failed to establish wrongfulness or a legal duty owed by KPMG to the plaintiffs, and the damages claimed were not sufficiently particulari…
Source excerpt
Meechan and Another v VGA Chartered Accountants Partnership t/a PKF (VGA) Chartered Accountants (7999/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 53; [2020] 2 All SA 510 (GJ) (28 February 2020)
The court held that the plaintiffs' amended particulars of claim did not disclose a cause of action against the defendant. The financial report relied upon by the plaintiffs was addressed solely to the members of the parent foundation, FMLAM, and did not mention FMLR or the plaintiffs. The alleged representations were not contained in the report, and the plaintiffs could not rely on extrinsic evidence to modify its meaning. The court found that no duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiffs, as there was no proximate relationship, dependence, or vulnerability; the plaintiffs, as…
Source excerpt
Hlumisa Investment Holdings (RF) Limited and Another v Kirkinis and Others (100390/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 676; 2019 (4) SA 569 (GP) (31 August 2018)
High Court exception upheld against shareholder claims for reflective loss and negligent audit misstatements.
Explore more
